G.R. No. L-46768 March 18, 1985
BASILIO GODINEZ, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MAMERTO IGOT and LORENZO IGOT, respondents.

FACTS

Felix Bergado owned Lot 655, which was inherited by his seven children. In a 1929 cadastral proceeding, the lot was ordered registered in the names of various transferees, but clerical errors prevented the issuance of a decree and title, leaving the land unregistered. The five-sevenths (5/7) share of five Bergado children was sold in 1929-1930 to spouses Domingo and Susana Magsumbol, while the remaining 2/7 share was transferred to another party. The Bergado heirs ceased possession, and the Magsumbols occupied the 5/7 portion, later designated as Lot 655-A. In 1962, the Magsumbols’ successor, Domingo Magsumbol, Jr., sold Lot 655-A to respondents Mamerto and Lorenzo Igot, who continued the possession.
In 1967, upon petition of some Bergado heirs, the 1929 cadastral decision was corrected, and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 8 was finally issued for Lot 655, registering it in the names of the Bergado heirs. Petitioners, as successors of these heirs, obtained this title. In 1970, the Igots sued for reconveyance of Lot 655-A.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents, as successors-in-interest of the Magsumbols, have acquired ownership over Lot 655-A through prescription, thereby prevailing over the registered title subsequently issued to the petitioners.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the petitioners’ claim. The legal logic rests on the application of acquisitive prescription over unregistered land. Since no Torrens title was issued from 1929 until 1967, Lot 655 remained unregistered land. The Magsumbols’ open, continuous, adverse, and notorious possession of Lot 655-A in the concept of an owner began in 1929-1930 upon their purchase. This possession, which lasted for over three decades before the issuance of OCT No. 8, perfected their ownership by ordinary acquisitive prescription under the applicable Code of Civil Procedure. This prescriptive right was transmitted to the Igots.
The subsequent registration and issuance of OCT No. 8 in 1967 did not nullify the Magsumbols’ and Igots’ vested ownership acquired by prescription. The title obtained by the petitioners was merely a “paper title” that could not defeat a right already consolidated through long-standing adverse possession. The defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply against a prescriptive title that had already vested before the original registration. The Court found no error in the appellate court’s ruling that law and common sense favored the Igots, who had possessed the land for over half a century.